Back
Punjab DGP Claims Injuries Self-Inflicted in Case Before
The has raised eyebrows by suggesting that injuries allegedly sustained by a youth in police custody may have been self-inflicted or caused by a "friendly hand." The assertion was made in an affidavit filed before the in response to a petition alleging . The court, which had earlier termed the matter "serious," is now set to examine the veracity of the state's claims and the adequacy of its inquiry mechanisms.
The case revolves around Mohanjeet Singh, a young man who claims he was subjected to brutal torture after showing a black flag to Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann during a "Lok Milni" programme on . According to the petition filed by Gurmail Singh under , Mohanjeet was detained, stripped naked, and beaten by police personnel at Police Station Cheema. The state, however, paints a sharply different picture.
Contradictory Medical Reports and the Self-Infliction Theory
The DGP's affidavit relies heavily on medical documentation to cast doubt on the allegations. It states that when Mohanjeet was first examined at the Civil Hospital on , "no fresh injury" was recorded. However, later that same evening, he was admitted to the same hospital, where a noted ten blunt injuries, with a duration estimated at two to six hours before the examination. This timeline, the state argues, is inconsistent with the claim that the injuries were inflicted during on the evening of .
"Possibility of 'self infliction or friendly hand' could not be ruled out,"
the affidavit asserts, citing medical opinion. The DGP further points out that Mohanjeet did not complain of any injury during his initial examination, which was conducted in the presence of his uncle and counsel. This silence, the state contends, undermines the credibility of his subsequent allegations.
The High Court, however, appears wary of accepting this explanation at face value. Justice Vikram Aggarwal, who heard the matter on , had called the case "serious" and directed the state to file a detailed report on the action taken. The court's skepticism signals that the medical evidence will be scrutinized closely.
Dope Test Controversy Adds Another Layer
Adding to the complexity is the state's claim that Mohanjeet tested positive for morphine in two separate dope tests. The first test, conducted at the police's request, returned a positive result. A second test, ordered after objections from Mohanjeet's uncle and counsel, also reportedly confirmed the presence of the substance. The state has not explicitly linked this to the injury timeline, but the implication is clear: Mohanjeet's credibility is further called into question.
The petitioner's counsel, , is expected to challenge the reliability and chain of custody of these tests. Legal experts note that the presence of a controlled substance does not automatically negate a claim of , nor does it explain the nature or timing of the injuries. The court may need to assess whether the dope test was conducted lawfully and whether it has any bearing on the core allegation.
Institutional Response: SIT and NHRC Step In
The state has informed the court that a has been constituted, comprising the SP City (Mohali), SP Investigation (Ropar), and ASP Zirakpur. Relevant records are being handed over to the committee for inquiry. However, the DGP's affidavit also notes that no under the Rules or have been initiated against any named police officer, as the inquiry is still ongoing.
Meanwhile, the has taken cognizance of a complaint dated and issued a notice under . The NHRC has directed the to independently verify the allegations, including Mohanjeet's medical condition and the preservation of evidence. This parallel investigation may exert pressure on the state to ensure transparency.
The petitioner has sought a investigation, arguing that a state-led SIT cannot be impartial. The counsel, , was present in court and sought time to respond, but Justice Aggarwal observed that no response was required at this stage as notice had not yet been issued. The matter will be heard next on .
Legal Implications: in Cases
This case highlights a recurring tension in jurisprudence: the . Under Indian law, once a person in custody alleges torture, the burden shifts to the state to disprove the claim. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that is a grave violation of , and any doubt must benefit the victim.
The DGP's reliance on the "self-infliction" theory may face a high evidentiary threshold. Courts have generally been reluctant to accept such explanations unless supported by compelling independent evidence, such as CCTV footage or credible witness testimony. In this case, the state has not yet provided any video evidence or independent witness accounts to support its claim.
Furthermore, the timing discrepancy cited by the state may cut both ways. If the injuries were indeed inflicted shortly before the second examination, the possibility of post-custodial assault by unknown persons cannot be ruled out. The state's argument that the injuries were self-inflicted requires a plausible explanation of how Mohanjeet could have inflicted ten blunt injuries on himself while in police custody or immediately after release.
Impact on Police Accountability and Human Rights Protections
This case is being closely watched by human rights advocates and legal professionals. If the High Court ultimately rejects the DGP's self-infliction theory, it could strengthen the framework for holding police accountable. Conversely, if the court accepts the state's narrative without rigorous scrutiny, it may embolden a culture of impunity.
The involvement of the NHRC adds a layer of oversight that could influence the outcome. The Commission's independent verification may uncover evidence that the state's SIT overlooks. Additionally, the court's decision on whether to order a probe will signal its level of trust in the state's investigative machinery.
For legal practitioners, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of prompt medical documentation and the preservation of evidence in claims. The discrepancy between the two medical reports—one finding no fresh injury and the other recording ten injuries—underscores the need for standardized protocols for examining detainees.
Conclusion: A Matter of Credibility and Justice
As the hearing approaches, the faces a delicate task: weighing the state's medical evidence against the victim's allegations, while ensuring that the investigation is credible and impartial. The self-infliction claim, if not substantiated, risks eroding public confidence in the police. On the other hand, if the allegations are found to be false, it could set a dangerous precedent for malicious complaints.
For now, the case remains a stark illustration of the challenges in proving and the systemic hurdles victims often face. The legal community will be watching closely to see how the court navigates this complex terrain.
